mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Mitigating Scoring Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge via Random Number Generation

arXiv 2608.05726 ↗First posted 6 Aug 2026cs.CL cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLMs) are often used as evaluators of text quality, known as LLM-as-a-Judge, which can outperform conventional automatic evaluation metrics that rely on reference texts. However, LLM evaluators tend to generate particular scores regardless of the context of the evaluated text, which is known as scoring bias. This study proposes a novel method to mitigate this scoring bias. An LLM is instructed to randomly generate number tokens, and the latent numerical bias of the LLM is identified by measuring the deviation of the observed distribution of numbers from the uniform distribution. A definition of a downstream task, for which an LLM evaluator is used, is added to the prompts for random number generation to measure task-specific latent number bias. In the evaluation by an LLM, the token generation probabilities for a given input are rectified considering the LLM's latent number bias. Results of the experiment on four different tasks, evaluation of LLM alignment, evaluation of summarization, Semantic Textual Similarity, and Semantic Textual Relatedness, demonstrate that our proposed method outperforms the baselines, including an LLM without debiasing and previous calibration methods. In addition, it is confirmed that scoring bias varies across LLMs, tasks, and score ranges, indicating the importance of measuring latent number bias as the case may be.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 24 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Aug 2026.

Builds on

17 of 24 references.

References · 17

  1. 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,132
  2. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
  3. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,462
  4. 2018GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understandingcited by 4,854
  5. 2023G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignmentcited by 2,205
  6. 2021Calibrate Before Use: Improving Few-Shot Performance of Language Modelscited by 1,371
  7. 2015Teaching Machines to Read and Comprehendcited by 1,039
  8. 2020SummEval: Re-evaluating Summarization Evaluationcited by 666
  9. 2024Prometheus 2: An Open Source Language Model Specialized in Evaluating Other Language Modelscited by 431
  10. 2024HelpSteer2: Open-source dataset for training top-performing reward modelscited by 232
  11. 2025Base Models Beat Aligned Models at Randomness and Creativitycited by 48
  12. 2025Evaluating Scoring Bias in LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 42
5 more
  1. 2023Generative Calibration for In-context Learningcited by 20
  2. 2026The Illusion of Stochasticity in LLMscited by 7
  3. 2025Deterministic or probabilistic? The psychology of LLMs as random number generatorscited by 6
  4. 2025Contrastive Decoding Mitigates Score Range Bias in LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 3
  5. 2026Exploring the Effects of Alignment on Numerical Bias in Large Language Modelscited by 3

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2024From Calculation to Adjudication: Examining LLM judges on Mathematical Reasoning Tasks
  2. 2025Analysis of instruction-based LLMs' capabilities to score and judge text-input problems in an academic setting
  3. 2026Anchoring Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge Systems: Prior Scores Compromise Evaluation Independence
  4. 2026Same Input, Different Scores: A Multi Model Study on the Inconsistency of LLM Judge
  5. 2026When Consistency Does Not Mean Reliability: Evaluating Local LLM Judges Against Human Ratings
  6. 2023Exploring the Reliability of Large Language Models as Customized Evaluators for Diverse NLP Tasks
  7. 2026Can LLM Reasoning Be Trusted? A Comparative Study: Using Human Benchmarking on Statistical Tasks
  8. 2025Neither Valid nor Reliable? Investigating the Use of LLMs as Judges